Intel's Conroe Previewed and Benchmarked 261
DrFishstik writes "Anandtech has a few preliminary benchmarks on Intel's new Conroe architecture. From the article: 'As far as we could tell, there was nothing fishy going on with the benchmarks or the install. Both systems [AMD 2.8Ghz OC and Conroe] were clean and used the latest versions of all of the drivers.'"
Shock news. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Conclusion (Score:2, Insightful)
While we're still comparing to Socket-939 and only using RD480, it does seem very unlikely that AMD would be able to make up this much of a deficit with Socket-AM2 and RD580. Especially looking at titles like F.E.A.R. where Conroe's performance advantage averages over 40%, it looks like Intel's confidence has been well placed.
Also keep in mind that we are over six months away from the actual launch of Conroe, performance can go up from where it is today. We also only looked at the 2.66GHz part, the Extreme Edition version of Conroe will most likely be clocked around 3.0GHz which will extend the performance advantage even further.
AMD still does have some time to surprise us with AM2, but from what we've seen today, they are going to have to do a lot of work to close this gap. We saw performance today in the two areas that we were most concerned about with Conroe: gaming and media encoding, and in both Intel greatly exceeded our expectations. Also remember that Conroe should be lower power than the AMD offering we compared it to, although we weren't able to measure power consumption at the wall in our brief time with the systems.
Going into IDF we expected to see a good showing from Conroe, but leaving IDF, well, now we just can't wait to have it.
More from the show as we get it...
Re:The Conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
The big question will be how will this compare to the next generation of AMD cpu's. And what will the price be. If amd will be faster per dollar the rise of amd will continue.
Who staged This? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown (Score:5, Insightful)
What about RAM? (Score:4, Insightful)
and:
Intel told us to expect an average performance advantage of around 20% across all benchmarks.
Did they really expect around 20% better performance, while using 66% faster RAM? That seems at least unfair to me... Especially the encoding tests, whose results depend heavily on RAM access.
Re:Shock news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given Intel's release date fiasco's it'll probably come out before conroe too.
Re:Wait and see (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel's attempt to produce a new architecture (netburst/p4) resulted in an underperforming overheating mess, so they're going back to one that works.
Latest chips, latest games & instant obsolesce (Score:2, Insightful)
A year or two after people spend an avg. of $1000+ for a new system, most are not going to run out and buy the latest dual core chip and ATI/NVidia video card just to play the latest new game (Quake 4, Far Cry, F.E.A.R., etc.) and then keep doing that year after year.
They need to make it so the games can be played (with the lowest settings) on any system with chips from the past 5 years IMHO. Then everyone can enjoy the game, some more detailed than others. At this point, it is just better to buy an XBOX or PS2 and just buy games that they know they can play without constantly upgrading your system.
What about cost, ram cost, power, and heat? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of importance to me in addition to raw speed are are the number of concurrent threads, the power consumption and with that the heat output I have to dissapate into my office or my lap, and of course the expense of both the processor and the ram it needs to get these kinds of speeds.
Frankly, I'm looking for which allows me to build the most efficient system for my needs at the least cost.
TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel's new chips have a Trust Enforcer chip embedded inside the CPU itself. Each chip features a unique serial number, DRM enforcement, Sealed Storage to prohibit you from reading your own files on your hard drive, and Remote Attestation to act as a spy on your computer to log your hardware and what software you run and to securely transmit that spy report to other people over the internet. The chip has your computer's master key locked inside, and you are forbidden to know your master key to control your own computer. Other models of the Trust chip are boobytrapped to self destruct if you attempt to get you key out, and I'd wager these CPUs are boobytrapped to self destruct as well.
Evil as hell.
-
The problem with buying a new processor (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep reading all these benchmarks, but then i hear afterwards "Oh, if you think that's good, just wait and see what so-and-so is comming out with next year!", so i think, oh, ok, i'll just wait for that then. Then when the new processor gets benchmarked i just hear the same thing over again.
And so... i don't think i'll ever buy a new processor... i'm always waiting for the next version.
I think it's a bit early for benchmarks... (Score:2, Insightful)
FPS are GPU dependant. (Score:1, Insightful)
Changes on CPU affect litte to nothing on FPS.
But maybe this will change?
If your game or engine required intense collision calculations, of phisic simulations. And this stuff its mostly poorly code with scripts. Or you need to compress/uncompress on-the-fly textures or sound. You will need that CPU horsepower.
Its also interesting how different RAM types and quantity of L1 cache affect this beckmarks. I think the information provides its too litte to really know anithing about the combo new games with new hardware.
impressive benchmarks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shock news. (Score:4, Insightful)
- They benchmarked 2.667GHz Conroe against 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX (FX-60 with 200MHz overclock)
So they are taking the AMD processor out of spec which can affect performance. Also, the forthcoming AMD processors are a new core architecture and will support faster RAM with an onboard memory controller. I think benchmarks of the final products will be much different. This is the same type of dog and pony show Intel has been doing since they released the Celeron (and possibly before, but that is when I started paying attention to hardware marketing).
- 2.8GHz Athlon64 FX will be released in June
- 2.667GHz Conroe will be released somewhere in Q3 2006
- Conroe Extreme editition clocked to at least 3.0GHz will be released somewhere in Q3 2006 (there have been rumours about 3.33GHz version)
If you think those numbers mean anything, I would like to know what cave you have been living in for the past 3 years.
Re:Wait and see (faked tests) (Score:5, Insightful)
Something isn't right, from the screenshot [anandtech.com].
..Using an award bios last copyrighted in 2003 for AMD's latest FX-60 chip (2006)..
..Notice how the AMD Processor isn't correctly id'd in the Bios post.
..Even though.. DFI has distributed a new bios version to suport FX60 [dfi.com.tw]..
.. This thread [rage3d.com]indicates that there is some video defect in RD480 chipset..
These red flags indicate that something is very fishy and Intel's results should not be trusted... (rigged test)
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:3, Insightful)
There's surprisingly little discussion of this... I remember, about 8 years ago, hearing an Intel engineer talking about how the next step in security was going to be ensuring that a PC was secure against its owner -- along with his updates on such things as encryption from end-to-end with media. I said at the time that what Intel was planning was nothing less than a total lockdown of the previously open PC platform.
And here we are... the final step. With this hardware in a PC, it does not belong to you... you have paid for a car with the bonnet welded shut and no keys.
It's important for everyone to realise just what an enormous amount of control this hardware gives to technology companies... in simple terms: your PC will be nothing more than a set-top box. Technology companies are furiously spinning this as improved security... which is not entirely wrong. This hardware does have security benefits... but as things stand, *YOU*, the person who paid money for the machine, are not in control of it. As others have noted, trusted computing is about them not trusting you -- and not about you trusting your machine. On the contrary, the only thing you can trust is that machines with this hardware are not working for you. Hence the strong link with DRM -- this hardware will enforce DRM on a PC, not to mention allow companies to make any FOSS proprietary (see the discussions about the GPL v3 for examples). Indeed, the TCPA system was designed in conjuction with the RIAA and the MPAA. It's supported by all the technology companies. And don't think that Linux distributors are against it either -- Red Hat is busy working with IBM to produce a TCPA version of Linux... software that cannot be modified by you and continue to work as it did. How about Gstreamer - the media framework used in GNOME? the company behind that has developers who are actively welcoming the introduction of signed Linux kernels (yes, Christian Schaller, I'm talking about you) that will ensure that media is never intercepted and stored... but which will also no longer function if you modify them, or even recompile them yourself. Source code means little in a Trusted Computing world, all that matters is who digitally signed the binary... and this hardware will enforce that. Companies like Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Fluendo etc can all effectively take ownership of FOSS code. Remember: DRM is all about applications. To control data, you must control what applications can access it. DRM is about apps, not data.
You are going to have to fight for your rights on this one. Apple users have rolled over and accepted the introduction of a TPM into the new Intel-based Macs... but then, they can never be relied on to say anything critical of Apple, even when they are being lied to and sold a lemon. They are quite happy to accept this. I would hope the PC crowd is different. Read Professor Ross Anderson's TCPA FAQ [cam.ac.uk]. Read Seth Schoen's updates on what Microsoft is planning to do with this hardware -- if that doesn't scare you, nothing will. Join things like the EFF's push to ensure that the hardware you pay good money for works for you [eff.org], and not Intel/Microsoft and Hollywood. Do not assume that "someone will hack it"... this stuff is not your average dumbass security measure. Educate yourself before its too late and this technology, in its present form, becomes ubiquitous. Support the push to ensure that you, as the owner, have access to the master key... and some method of owner override. Otherwise, in five years, there will be a big brother in every single PC and no way of escaping it.
Re:Shock news. (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't anyone else recall Intel releasing a faster processor, yet having to have the CPU idle for half of them to keep it from melting down?
Seems to me that we can speculate all you want, yet, in the end, only final numbers will be able to show what's what....
At this point it's all a big phallic comparison, and everyone who jumps on board swinging their own extensions are just blowing smoke up everyone's arses.
Re:Latest chips, latest games & instant obsole (Score:1, Insightful)
Buy not-quite-bottom end stuff, you get the best bang-for-buck and you'll be able to play anything on the market. I'm using an athlonXP 2600+ and it's still comfortably able to play anything that's around, I figure I'll do my next CPU swap when dual-core AMD gets below $120 - I might be able to use the same DDR400 RAM too, saving more cash.
Re:TrustedComputing Inside (TM) (Score:2, Insightful)
Believe it or not, this fight is not lost. It's not just geeks on slashdot. This hardware (with the master key hidden) takes control of the PC *completely away from a business*. It puts them completely at the mercy of Intel and Microsoft.
We can get them onside in the push to ensure that they hardware works for us, and not against us. We jsut have to make sure that they hear us and not just Intel whisphering seductive promises of better security and control over their computers.
Look at it this way: Microsoft and Intel will be selling this hardware as allowing Boss total control of his employees. The reality is that any company boss submitting to use this hardware without access to the master key is giving up any control of their data, and in fact, any privacy. This is a message that will sell... and Intel and Microsoft *will* have to listen when their business customers start telling them to fuck off. We just have to ensure that our message is heard, by the press, by business, and by your average consumer.
Re:AMD Processor Model Unknown (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knows, this test may be foretelling of AMD's next effort, but until the actual product is out, IMO, this test is meaningless.
Re:Wait and see (faked tests) (Score:5, Insightful)
Corrected link to DFI bios update. [dfi.com.tw]. (using ATI's RD480) chipset..
Notice items.. 1, 2, and 10..
Re:Wait and see (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe for a second that Intel's marketing department designed the p4. But I'm also not so naive as to think that Intel's marketing department didn't try to take advantage of high clock speeds in their advertising. They made their bed, now they get to lie in it.
AMD has delivered better speed performance at better power consumption than Intel. Kudos to Intel for trying a new design, too bad for them they stuck with it for so long. That is life in the big city. The company that delivers *results* gets rewarded. AMD has done just that.
Re:Let's all hope it is true (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Wait and see (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think anyone who knows much about CPU's is "blaming" Intel for going back to the P6 core. The P6 was basically the beginning of the modern x86 CPU...more RISC than CISC. As for the K7, this article [arstechnica.com] has a good summary of how it's similar to, but different from, the P6. I think a better euphamism would be 'AMD decided to build a better P6'. (Which is actually what Intel has done as well. This isn't just a faster P6, it's redesign of the P6.) AMD 'stole' from Intel about as much as Intel stole from DEC and Motorola and other RISC CPUs in building the P6, and as much as they had 'stolen' from the CPUs before them. Welcome to the evolution of the CPU, where every CPU is not designed in a vacuum with no relation to anything else, but is built on previous technology and ideas.
Too bad the superior engineers at Intel weren't smart enough to copy AMD's supposedly "minor tweaks" and bring out a competitive CPU in the last couple of years, and instead chose to stick with their risky design which essentially hit a clock speed wall that they were apparently unable to predict. Surely the geniuses at Intel could have designed a better P6 than that "copy" which was beating their P4 in less than 6 years. Or perhaps they didn't care, and thought that marketing would keep them on top?
Re:Wait and see (faked tests) (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope no one tells ATI or Nvidia that this is possible.
History repeats itself. Wait for the real hardware to come out and be benchmarked by independent 3rd parties before getting worked up about how great the new Intel harware is going to be, once it's not vaporware. Nothing new here folks.
Re:Shock news. (Score:3, Insightful)